It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are there any conspiracy theorist left here?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Our government has at times experimented on the population unwittingly, and does employ tactics which were only imagined, but not confirmed until years later.
That's exactly what I am talking about. Those programs were revealed (and not through media such as this), then after the fact they are used as evidence that "current" conspiracy theories are valid.

"They" sprayed stuff before, therefore "chemtrails" are real.




edit on 6/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

If you are to confine "perceived truths" to the domain of morality, then your words would be correct. That's something I'd have to chew on for a while.

I think many CTs have been discussed, and fleshed out, and the only ones who are still running with the very poor quality ones are not thinking well and should be called out. That's my personal opinion. You may disagree. I'd rather this site grow up and focus energies on the few conspiracies that have yet to be proven incorrect. It seems that's asking too much.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I do get that this happens, but that's not where my reasoning was going. People theorized before the information was made public in the case of MKULTRA and COINTELPRO. I get that people create theorizes after the revelation as well. That's a whole other can of worms!



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: SLAYER69

If you are to confine "perceived truths" to the domain of morality, then your words would be correct. That's something I'd have to chew on for a while.

I think many CTs have been discussed, and fleshed out, and the only ones who are still running with the very poor quality ones are not thinking well and should be called out.


Why? Really, why do you want to shut down different thinking because YOU don't buy it? Just walk on by imo.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

You wrote this:



Not really. The majority are proven false, and the few which were proven truly were often spun in so many ways that at least one of them had a good chance of being true.


I responded thus:



What does this even mean? I have analysed the words, but they don't compute in any logical way. Can you explain?


Your response as follows:



Funny, I usually find your words to be circular. What exactly don't you get? There is nothing that isn't very straight forward in the quoted words.


I was slightly at a loss so:



I think you are just playing with me. Nothing about what you wrote is straight forward to me, help a brother out? Which conspiracies were proven which were later spun, and out of those, which one had the probability of being true? Am I misunderstanding to such a degree as to kill myself here or what?


And you wrote this:



Wait wait, wait! I'm the one who isn't speaking logically here? How the hell did you get that out of my words? This is very simple, I have no clue why you made all those twists and turns right there. Have you heard the expression, "even a broken clock is right twice a day" ?? That's it. All I was saying. 1. Most conspiracies are proven false. This is self-evident if you've been a conspiracy theorist for a long while. Most of the crap, while maybe having a sliver of truth, is proven to be incorrect. 2. Of the remaining, most events that have a theory pointing to be mostly or entirely true, have even more theories that are far off base. Hence, even a broken clock is right twice a day.


I defy anybody to follow this conversation.




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

How many times has this happened between us JJJ? We don't have similar minds, and often are completely confused by each other's words. This doesn't lead anywhere good, and if you can make sense of other people's words and not confuse the crap out of them then maybe we should just choose not to keep entering these situations are realize we don't understand each other's thought process?
edit on 18-6-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese




People theorized before the information was made public in the case of MKULTRA and COINTELPRO.

Really? Can you provide evidence of this?

You can go back to The Manchurian Candidate and such, but that was based on "brainwashing" techniques. Techniques which did not come to light from the discussions of conspiracy theorists.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

I'd rather this site grow up and focus energies on the few conspiracies that have yet to be proven incorrect. It seems that's asking too much.


I believe ATS has had and continues to have presently both.

Higher quality and less than so. I think ATS has grown to now include other topics and discussions. I guess it all depends on the level of interest and understanding/expertise with and of the subject matter presented. We, obviously are not all hard core CTs, we're more like the old one room school house where every students sits in a single room while at various levels of understanding and abilities to discern whats being presented and debated.

I highly doubt a 10th grader would find the 2nd graders discussion on whether Batman could beat up Wonder Woman worth their time, conversely would the 2nd grader be interested in whether there truly was enough structural damage for building 7 to come down after the incident?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
To attempt to push higher quality thought on this site? Hey if you think passivity is the answer, then good for you, but I would rather call out trashy theories for what they are. Honestly most of the ones are so beyond ridiculous that I don't even bother, it's the ones where someone might have a semi-coherent thought process and be good enough to convince some people to join in with their madness. How could I in good conscience allow that to go unchecked? That makes no sense to me.

The whole motto of this site, "Deny Ignorance"... doesn't mean ignore it and move on...



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Jonjonj

How many times has this happened between us JJJ? We don't have similar minds, and often are completely confused by each other's words. This doesn't lead anywhere good, and if you can make sense of other people's words and not confuse the crap out of them then maybe we should just choose not to keep entering these situations are realize we don't understand each other's thought process?


I think that the only real times this happened was in the old days of ATS chat. But if what you are suggesting is that I ignore you then no problem, consider it done. After all, conspiracy theories are worthy of being ignored right? From the horses mouth and all that.




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Why is this so difficult? I understand a lot of RAD Attachment Disorder reasons but still--it is sooooooooo at a 2 year old fit throwing level. And there seems to be no end to it.

The in-your-face haughtiness, personhood assaultiveness of it . . . it's still routinely brazen even though as a whole, the civility of ATS has improved a lot the last few years.

It's just weary-ing. If they feel such compelling outrage, that alone might should be a sign that they should consider it a mandate to scroll on by, SILENTLY.



originally posted by: intrepid

Why? Really, why do you want to shut down different thinking because YOU don't buy it? Just walk on by imo.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No I can't easily find this information online, but I do think it would make a worthy thread. I'll jot it down on the list of things to do for the week, and if I do find the information I'll make a thread.

Man, how did I get so many people replying to me in this thread? I don't have time for this, sorry people I gotta deuce.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

It's happened at least a dozen times on these threads between the two of us.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese




Man, how did I get so many people replying to me in this thread?

You can get used to it after a while.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Jonjonj

It's happened at least a dozen times on these threads between the two of us.


Forgive me for not noticing.



Edit: That sounds flippant, not my intention. I very rarely take note of the username I am answering to. I know that sounds fake, but it is true. I am guilty of being biased during a period of reponses, but it never lasts more than a day or so.


edit on 18-6-2016 by Jonjonj because: edited to edit something



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I suspect I have more qualifications with which to assess "madness"

than . . . uhhhh . . . most folks on ATS.

I don't do it--particularly toward identifiable individuals and their personhood.

It's more than sufficient for me to talk about beliefs, ideas, perceptions, constructions on reality etc.

Yet, folks of your ilk seem to utterly DELIGHT in personally assaulting the personhood of individuals--and that quite unwarrantedly--merely because your constructions on reality are DIFFERENT.

They are NOT of a higher quality.
They are NOT more reasonable.
They are NOT more sane.
They are NOT more scientific.
They are NOT more verifiable.

They DO display an addiction to a compulsive PREFERENCE FOR RISKING A FALSE NEGATIVE ERROR much more than tolerance of risking a FALSE POSITIVE error.

THAT is NOT reasonable.
THAT is NOT scientific.
THAT is NOT objectively sound.

Sigh.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

Man, how did I get so many people replying to me in this thread? I don't have time for this, sorry people I gotta deuce.


It's your 15 minutes of fame.





posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Maybe, one thing i do know in my 8 years here is:

Everybody is news reporter !! Gone are the days of true substance.

I can count around 10 true ATS members.

Phage isnt even one of them anymore, he has to spend all his time here correcting idiots for throwing headlines on the board without doing any research.

Bring back the BIFF



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeMode

I've had my.own ufo experiences they are real I promise you



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy


Gone are the days of true substance.

I can count around 10 true ATS members.


I agree, well said!


Years ago ATS had some great critical thinkers on here, most are gone now.

There is one critical thinker on the 911 threads that has created many threads posting his credible science and some remarkable well researched materials including all his sources to back his claims.

I can tell you all his work is remarkable and well put together. Most of his new threads he has done cannot be debunked.

There are other wonderful members here that do a good job as well, but in my "opinion" very few are left from the old days where we all used to go deep in many rabbit holes. Most of us would come out much wiser and had learned many new things.

I miss those days.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join